<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Litigator - Affleck Greene McMurtry, LLP &#187; evidence</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/tag/evidence/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca</link>
	<description>Competition Law and Commercial Litigation Updates</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:37:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Statements to Securities Commission are protected by absolute privilege</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2009/12/statements-to-securities-commission-are-protected-by-absolute-privilege/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2009/12/statements-to-securities-commission-are-protected-by-absolute-privilege/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 05:06:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Dekker</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Attacks on Reputation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[absolute privilege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[advisor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defamatory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disciplinary proceedings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fraleigh]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IDA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IIROC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[investment dealer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[libel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MFDA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mutual fund dealer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Newbould]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ontario]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[OSC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[qualified privilege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[quasi-judicial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RBC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regulator]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[salesperson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[securities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[slander]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Superior Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[testify]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[testimony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[uniform termination notice]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=515</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In his decision this Fall in Fraleigh v. RBC Dominion Securities, Ontario Superior Court Justice Newbould summarily dismissed an action brought by John Fraleigh against RBC Dominion Securities and one of its employees. The action was brought for allegedly false statements and testimony given before the Ontario Securities Commission claiming unusual trading activity in his RBC trading accounts – information that was later published in media reports. In dismissing Fraleigh’s action, Justice Newbould found that the claim arose entirely from testimony and other related communications to the OSC; communications that are protected by absolute privilege.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2009/12/statements-to-securities-commission-are-protected-by-absolute-privilege/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The letters rogatory that got away</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/06/the-letters-rogatory-that-got-away/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/06/the-letters-rogatory-that-got-away/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:28:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sonny Ingram</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Enforcement of Foreign Judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[comity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conflict of laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[depositions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[discovery]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[District Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[examination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[foreign]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[human rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judicial assistance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[letters of request]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[letters rogatory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ontario Superior Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[relevance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[relevant]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sudan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Talisman]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=190</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Last fall, the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned an order enforcing a request for international judicial assistance (also known as letters rogatory) that sought to compel a former executive of a Talisman Energy Inc. subsidiary to be deposed in a U.S. action.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/06/the-letters-rogatory-that-got-away/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>When an expert is not really an expert</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/when-an-expert-is-not-really-an-expert/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/when-an-expert-is-not-really-an-expert/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Nov 2006 01:25:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Meredith Hayward</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[admissibility]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[advocate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[broker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brokerage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[expert witness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gatekeeper]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IDA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[investment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[opinion evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[OSC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[registered representative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regulatory requirements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trial witnesses]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=239</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A recent Ontario Superior Court decision serves as a strong reminder that counsel should ensure that their expert witness is in fact an expert and not merely an advocate dressed up as an expert.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/when-an-expert-is-not-really-an-expert/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Defence counsel removed for deliberate use of privileged documents</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/defence-counsel-removed-for-deliberate-use-of-privileged-documents/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/defence-counsel-removed-for-deliberate-use-of-privileged-documents/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Nov 2006 21:15:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Dekker</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[affidavit of documents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[celanese canada inc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[confidentiality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[counsel of record]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[discovery]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[estate deals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[inadvertent disclosure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[privilege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[removal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[removing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[request to admit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[solicitor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[solicitor-client privilege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[specific performance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trial judge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[witnesses]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=215</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It has not taken long for Ontario litigants to begin feeling the impact of the recent decision by Canada’s Supreme Court that protection of solicitor-client privilege required the removal of plaintiff’s counsel in Celanese Canada Inc. v. Murray Demolition.  If there was any doubt as to the serious consequences that can flow from counsel’s receipt and review of an opposing party’s privileged documents, that doubt was surely erased for a defendant that was recently deprived of its counsel of choice at the beginning of trial.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/defence-counsel-removed-for-deliberate-use-of-privileged-documents/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Canada’s top court removes plaintiff’s counsel after its receipt of privileged documents</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/canada%e2%80%99s-top-court-removes-plaintiff%e2%80%99s-counsel-after-its-receipt-of-privileged-documents/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/canada%e2%80%99s-top-court-removes-plaintiff%e2%80%99s-counsel-after-its-receipt-of-privileged-documents/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Nov 2006 20:22:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam Wygodny</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[admissibility]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[confidentiality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[exclusion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[litigation privilege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[privilege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme court of canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[witnesses]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=186</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In its recent decision in Celanese Canada Inc. v. Murray Demolition Corp. the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously favoured protecting solicitor-client privilege over the right to be represented by one’s solicitor of choice.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/canada%e2%80%99s-top-court-removes-plaintiff%e2%80%99s-counsel-after-its-receipt-of-privileged-documents/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court of Canada confirms litigation privilege of limited duratio</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/supreme-court-of-canada-confirms-litigation-privilege-of-limited-duratio/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/supreme-court-of-canada-confirms-litigation-privilege-of-limited-duratio/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Nov 2006 00:36:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Meredith Hayward</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[admissibility]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[confidentiality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[exclusion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[litigation privilege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[privilege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme court of canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[witnesses]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=328</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In its first review of the lifespan of litigation privilege, the Supreme Court of Canada has recently ruled that, unlike solicitor-client privilege, it 'expires with the litigation of which it was born.']]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/supreme-court-of-canada-confirms-litigation-privilege-of-limited-duratio/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Foundations of Effective Cross-Examination</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/09/foundations-of-effective-cross-examination/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/09/foundations-of-effective-cross-examination/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Sep 2006 20:58:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Meredith Hayward</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[advocacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[credibility]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cross-examination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cross-examine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[discovery counsel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[examining witnesses]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[expert]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[impeachment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International and Domestic Arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[leading]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[questioning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[testify]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[testimony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trial practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[witness statements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[witnesses]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=203</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Cross-examination is an invaluable tool at trial. The ultimate challenge for a trial lawyer is to extract information from the opponent's witnesses to support their client's case and/or undermine the credibility of the opponent's position. While no substitute exists for experience I have tried to outline some practical guidelines to assist those who are developing their own style and techniques.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/09/foundations-of-effective-cross-examination/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Mediation Confidentiality Preserved: Rudd v. Trossacs Investments</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/05/mediation-confidentiality-preserved-rudd-v-trossacs-investments/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/05/mediation-confidentiality-preserved-rudd-v-trossacs-investments/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 May 2006 19:20:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Meredith Hayward</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mediation and other Alternative Dispute Resolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ADR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[alternate dispute resolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[confidentiality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[limited partnerships]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mediation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mediator]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Meredith Hayward]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[privilege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[settlement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[settlement agreement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[settlement discussions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[without prejudice privilege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[witnesses]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=284</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Mediators breathed a collective sigh of relief when the Ontario Divisional Court upheld the confidentiality of mediations by refusing to compel a mediator to testify about communications between parties at a mediation. Rudd v. Trossacs Investments]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/05/mediation-confidentiality-preserved-rudd-v-trossacs-investments/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

